Sorry what was I thinking. We all know he is only kidding. At least Wikipedia and google does.

So because it might take them 3 years to accomplish nuclear weapons we should take a breath? We should not worry? We should listen to google? We should glean our information from Wikipedia???????

Sorry but I dont like your math and I dont like your conclusions and as the proverbial saying goes…….That just ain’t right.

WHY?

Uranium: yes, we all know that, that’s why American intelligence thinks they’ll need 4 years, although the latest info, as reported, might mean that they’ll be there in 2 – 4 years.

As I understand it, it is a bigger step to go from nothing to a bit enriched, then from a bit to much enriched.

Am I correct?

People who cite this should be obligated to finish the thought. So. what should have the US have done? Bomb Beirut? Destroy Lebanon? What?

Israel didn’t run from Hezbollah last year. The result is a stronger Hezbollah.

This is about revenge. I don;t think we should ever go to war based on emotions without a cold dash of reasonable assessment thrown in.

Is this going to be our justification for every military decision from now on? Not whether we have a good chance of achieving set objectives, not whether the losses we face are worth what we have a chance of gaining, not whether the idea has any public support, not whether we can afford the money for the effort, not whether it will weaken our military in the long run militarily, but whether the Muslim world will see it as a sign of weakness?????

Its a fallacy that this is the only criteria we should use, and can easily lead us to self-destructive engagements. I think constantly second guessing every action by whether or not it will embolden the enemy actually weakens us as a nation. It also means we can never leave Iraq, or at least not for the forseeable future. Even when Bush and Condi put pressure on Maliki, letting him know he was on borrowed time with the American people, he used that argument.

Power Station grade Uranium is 3% pure.
Weapons grade Uranium is 97% pure.
Iran is going to have a hard time making Weapons grade Uranium in my estimation…but then again all this talk ’bout Israel, they’re indirectly supplying their enemies with weapons tech via China…how many times do I have to say this? *smh*

btw…hi, laura!

A Turbo Popeye flying at 50 feet will give a glorious fireball to watch in Qom, the Persian heathens city. If no one sees the splash from the German subs……

If they did retaliate then we should fully back them against the outcry though.

Rudi, do you mean no one has any interest in the reality of Iran’s capabilities?

If so, I cautiously agree. As you suggest in your remark about rhetoric, there seems to be a knee-jerk reaction on both sides (one that we are facing Holocaust,the other that it is all an illusion).

Iran does seem to be having difficulty. However, they could easily send some chaps to Pakistan with some briefcases of cash (as they have done), and these problems would be resolved. Equally, there were reports last week of Iranian experts in North Korea observing their tests.

They may be years off…but that is no reason to dismiss the possibility.

BTW: I noticed in this thread the assumption that the US would retaliate for an Iranian nuclear strike on Tel Aviv. I was surprised at this. Do people here agree the US would do this? After all, Israel is a client, but not a formal treaty ally. Should the US do this, when Israel has its own capability?

I know the BBC would probably advise calm in case of a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv, and the EU would certainly advise against Israeli retaliation that may “escalate” the crisis . . . but why should President Hillary/Obama/Sharpton get involved?

U235 is complicated to refine, science is out their for anybody, but the logistics and engineering make it difficult for 3rd world countries. Iran still doesn’t have a large scale breeder reactor, no reactor no PU. From what I understand PU extraction is a more simple chemical engineering process, but creating a implosion bomb is more difficult than a gun bomb. The US and USSR had tactical gun type artillery (mini gun bombs) during the height of the Cold War. I recommend ArmsControlWonks for the nerds, better informed and no political bloviating or Rapture Ready crowd.

I’m sick of people saying Hillary is an opportunist, something John McCain for example, is never accused of being, even though he too cannot be placed in some ideological straightjacket.

Laura,
Actually that is very much my opinion of McCain (well, a combination of contrarian and opportunist, choosing when to be contrarian when he judges that the maverick position will be favorably recieved.) I don’t know if I’ve ever stated that here but I have voiced this opinion many times.

I concede that it may be a bias of mine because I’m ideological and I think that decisions should be made with the backdrop of a particular worldview and philosophy, but I do try to objectively determine whether or not a pragmatic politician is making decisions based on conviction or not. In other words, I do believe that it’s possible for a politician to formulate policy positions on a case by case basis rather than by ideology; but it usually seems to me that rather than doing so, most of the time they are choosing their position not by what they think is best but by what they think is most popular at that moment.

In any case, once any amount of science or rudi-mentary damage analysis is talked about, it ruins the doomsday scenarios.